George W. Bush committed hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism (indicated in my blog).

George W. Bush did in fact commit innumerable hate crimes.

And I do solemnly swear by Almighty God that George W. Bush committed other hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism which I am not at liberty to mention.

Many people know what Bush did.

And many people will know what Bush did—even to the end of the world.

Bush was absolute evil.

Bush is now like a fugitive from justice.

Bush is a psychological prisoner.

Bush has a lot to worry about.

Bush can technically be prosecuted for hate crimes at any time.

In any case, Bush will go down in history in infamy.

Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993

“GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY” BLOG OF ANDREW YU-JEN WANG
______________________
I am not sure where I had read it before, but anyway, it is a linguistically excellent statement, and it goes kind of like this: “If only it were possible to ban invention that bottled up memories so they never got stale and faded.” Oh wait—off the top of my head—I think the quotation came from my Lower Merion High School yearbook.

Regarding the deployment of troops inside the United States…Well, they’re to help with disaster operations. Hell, if my house was just blown away by a tornado, or if I’m stuck in the middle of a hurricane-flooded neighborhood, I wouldn’t mind the Army helping at all.

What if someone puts the lead paragraph and the link?
I’m confused, as I have seen on countless blogs articles which have the first 3-5 paragraphs, highly reputable blogs and news sources. I really need to look into this copyright law situation, because I think the more this critical information can be shared, the better. Corporate media only allows so much truth to eek through, know what I mean?

Regardless…whatever must be done, must be done.

Want to see some scary s**t? Read the link below.
Gates’ pro-war, pro regime change M.O. isn’t the only thing we have to worry about in the next two years regarding the military. Because they are coming to a street near you!

Pentagon to deploy 20,000 uniformed military…inside the United States.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27989275/?omg

Anyway, I stay by what I said. Gates isn’t the ideal choice, but he’s only signed on for a year and I think Obama’s withdrawal policy is going to stay in place with or without him. And yes, placating disgruntled members of the military and intelligence services does have to get some attention if Obama is going to be able to work with them enacting his agenda.

Web Exclusive
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
Updated: 6:56 p.m. ET Nov 8, 2006

Nov. 8, 2006 – By choosing Robert Gates as his new Defense secretary, President George W. Bush is once again turning to a trusted warhorse from his father’s administration. But the Gates nomination also could remind the new Democratic Congress about controversies from the George H.W. Bush era as well.

Gates was investigated during the late 1980s and 1990s by independent counsel Lawrence Walsh over whether Gates had told the truth about the Iran-contra affair, which occurred during his tenure as deputy to Ronald Reagan’s CIA director, William Casey. Questions about Gates’s knowledge of secret arms sales to Iran—and the diversion of proceeds to support the Nicaraguan contras—caused Gates to withdraw his nomination to succeed Casey as CIA director in 1987.

Gates was again nominated by President George H.W. Bush to be CIA chief in 1991, setting off an intense and spirited confirmation hearing in which charges and countercharges about Iran-contra flared anew. Gates also was publicly accused by former CIA subordinates of slanting intelligence about the Soviet threat—a criticism that evokes an eerie parallel to accusations hurled against the current Bush administration over its handling of pre-war intelligence about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to Al Qaeda.

After months of partisan wrangling and debate, Gates was confirmed as CIA director in November 1991 and served in that capacity until the end of the first President Bush’s term in January 1993. He later served as director of the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library and, after that, as president of Texas A&M University where the Bush library is housed. After Congress in 2004 passed “intelligence reform” legislation creating the post of a national intelligence director to co-ordinate the activities of feuding intelligence agencies, the White House approached Gates to see if he wanted to become the first new intelligence czar. But on that occasion, Gates turned George W. Bush down …

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15627855/site/newsweek/

********************************
When George H.W. Bush was CIA director in 1976, he headed up “Team B” — an attempt to find more damning evidence of Soviet military strength than the CIA proper was prepared to endorse. When Gates became deputy CIA director under Casey in 1981, he had essentially the same assignment.

At that time, the focus was shifting from the communism to terrorism, by way of a cockamamie theory, much loved by Michael Ledeen and his pals, that the Soviet Union was the source and sponsor of all international terrorism. Gates was part of that process as well.

So the cherry-picking about terrorism or Iraqi WMD’s that goes on today is fruit from the same tainted tree as what Gates was doing 25 years ago. There isn’t even enough space to see daylight between them.

Not since 2003 when Secretary of State Colin Powell wowed Official Washington with his United Nations speech on Iraq’s WMD has there been such an awed consensus about any public figure as there has been for former CIA Director Gates, who is almost universally praised for his intelligence, experience and down-to-earth style. But there are serious unresolved questions about Gates’s past that the American people might want resolved before he is entrusted with the awesome new powers that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 puts in the hands of the Defense Secretary.

In 1991, for reasons mostly of political expediency and personal friendship, Gates’s last confirmation process for CIA director never got to the bottom of allegations linking Gates to some of the most serious national security scandals of the 1980s, including illegal involvement in arms deals with Iran and Iraq.

read more here:
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2006/120106Parry.html

——————————————————————————–

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It’s also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & ‘Project Truth.’ This article is republished in the Baltimore Chronicle with permission of the author.

Gates: Iraq resolution ‘emboldens’ enemy
Defense Secretary Robert Gates gestures during a media roundtable at the Pentagon, Friday Jan. 26, 2007. (AP Photo/Yuri Gripas, Pool)
By Robert Burns, AP Military Writer | January 27, 2007

WASHINGTON –A congressional rebuke of President Bush’s troop buildup in Iraq would undercut American commanders in a way that “emboldens the enemy,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates says.

At his first Pentagon news conference since taking office Dec. 18, Gates was asked whether a congressional resolution criticizing Bush’s plan would offer the insurgents new hope.

“It’s pretty clear that a resolution that in effect says that the general going out to take command of the arena shouldn’t have the resources he thinks he needs to be successful certainly emboldens the enemy and our adversaries,” Gates said Friday.

“I think it’s hard to measure that with any precision, but it seems pretty straightforward that any indication of flagging will in the United States gives encouragement to those folks,” Gates said, referring to the anti-government forces in Baghdad. He added that he was certain this was not the intent of those who support the congressional resolution, “but that’s the effect.”

The Pentagon is studying whether it could accelerate the deployment of the five additional Army brigades that are to be dispatched to Baghdad by late May to bolster security in the capital, Gates said.

In remarks at the White House, Bush challenged lawmakers not to prematurely condemn his buildup. “I’m the decision maker” on troop levels, Bush said.

STAYING FRIENDS with the military are important here?
What is NYU Journalism teaching you, Ned?

A harmonious working relationship?

Do your HomeWork, Ned, if your are going to comment on someone.
Here, let me help you:
****************************************************************************
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2006/11/Gates%20Files.html

Rumsfeld’s Replacement: The Robert Gates File
Washington Dispatch: Iran-Contra figure, regime-change enthusiast, alleged intelligence manipulator — meet Robert Gates, the man who’s poised to be the next Secretary of Defense.

By James Ridgeway

November 9, 2006

WASHINGTON—While Donald Rumsfeld was Ronald Reagan’s errand boy to Saddam Hussein in the mid-1980s, Robert Gates, the man named yesterday to succeed him as Secretary of Defense, was at the very heart of the American intelligence apparatus, actively planning and carrying out covert operations in Central America and the Middle East.

Gates, a 26-year CIA veteran and the agency’s director between 1991 and 1993, has long been accused of undermining competent, unbiased intelligence analysis at the agency during his tenure, opening the way for its role in partisan politics, a reality brought to the fore again as the Bush administration made its flawed and phony case for war with Iraq. Gates was a high official at the CIA at a time when the U.S. intelligence community experienced one of its most humiliating debacles: the failure to predict the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Instead, under CIA director William Casey the U.S. concocted evidence showing the expansion of Reagan’s “evil empire.”

….

In November 1991, years after Iran-Contra messily unraveled, the Senate deliberated on the nomination of Gates to succeed William H. Webster as the next director of Central Intelligence. Democrats, including former Senator Tom Daschle, Jay Rockefeller, and the late Paul Wellstone spoke forcefully, vowing to vote against the nominee. “Robert Gates became the Deputy Director of the CIA in April, 1986, after a meteoric rise in the Agency,” Wellstone said. “His confirmation hearings provided ample and credible evidence that, as the Deputy Director, he repeatedly skewed intelligence to promote the world view of his mentor and his boss, William Casey. Analysts specializing in the Soviet Union, Latin America, Africa, and scientific affairs, came forward–some at risk to their careers in the agency–to provide examples. The record further strongly suggests that Robert Gates supported–passively or actively–terribly misguided or illegal covert operations, including the diversion of funds to the Nicaraguan Contras obtained through the sale of arms to Iran. He also had a hand in hiding some of the details of these covert operations from Congress. Lastly, the record showed that Robert Gates crossed the line from independent intelligence-gathering into high-profile policymaking when he gave speeches advocating an unyielding line toward the Soviet Union and deployment of a star wars missile defense system.”

“My questions regarding whether or not Robert Gates participated in the politicization of intelligence culminate in my deep concern about what we can expect from Robert Gates if he is confirmed as the next Director of Central Intelligence,” Daschle said. “Again, I ask my colleagues, if Robert Gates cooked the books to advocate the ideological position of the administration while serving as Deputy Director for Intelligence and Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, is it possible that U.S. intelligence under his guidance will continue to politicize intelligence? My answer is, ‘We cannot afford to take that chance.’”

Gates, who is a member of the Iraq Study Group, which is preparing an assessment of the situation on Iraq that may well inform the nation’s policy going forward, has been hailed as the man who may bring order to a disastrously waged war. His nomination, some say, indicates a policy shift that is already in motion. Many of the nation’s problems now stem from the fact that politics and ideology have seeped into nearly every crevice of the federal bureaucracy. And Congress must now decide whether it can afford to take another chance on Robert Gates.

There’s a reason why JFK was gunned down. Actually two.
1) He attempted to disband the CIA
2) He planned immediate and full withdrawal from Vietnam, a false war on terror.

Bob Gates will not get assassinated in a black op because he is doing what he is told, i.e. continuing a false war on terror.

Read this clip, Ned.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/world/asia/18gates.html?_r=1&ref=world

“I think the key for us is, on those rare occasions when we do make a mistake (bombing civilians in Afghanistan), when there is an error, to apologize quickly, to compensate the victims quickly, and then carry out the investigation,” Mr. Gates said, after meeting with President Hamid Karzai here.

RARE OCCASSIONS? Carry out “an investigation?” please. Like the one the US government “carried out” in the form of the 9-11 Commission Report? What a joke that was, and I doubt one soul at NYU Local read that book.